Draft Reply for GST Notices Form 3B and 2A
Draft Reply after confirmation of applicability could include the
following points provided:
Date ---------- RPAD/ Speed Post
To:
GST Officer ( issuing notice)
CC to Commissioner SGST
Dear Sir,
Sub: Reply to ASMT 1 difference in credit in
addition to reply online.
We are in receipt of the online mail from mail ID…..Please confirm
whether this would be the official ID for further mails and we can
reply to this ID.
The period provided of …days is less than the 30 days provided in
general for any replies.
The lumpsum figure does not provide the period and the list of credits
which have been compared with our figures in 3B. ( We provide our list of
credits in Annexure-1)
GST was supposed to be based on voluntary compliance and non
invasive. As we understand GSTR 2A is not available or mandatory and therefore
comparison with that document may not be fair and in line with GST Act.
It would have been proper to compare the GSTR1 of the supplier and our
3B which could be confirmed.
The reasons for differences could be as under:
1. Delay in availing the credit of earlier months availed in the month
under question.
2. Ineligible credits not claimed by us.
3. Reverse charge payments and consequent credits not considered.
4. Import IGST credits similarly not considered.
5. The non-compliance from the supplier's side due to non payment,
incorrect uploading, data entry mistake in figures or GST numbers,
classifying at B2C instead of B2B and maybe many more which we are still to see
are not in our control.
We understand that only in exceptional cases like missing dealer etc,
we would be questioned about non-compliance by the supplier and have to prove
our compliance.
We have a system of verification of the credits once in a quarter and would
be availing the missed credits and reverse the excess credit availed in the
subsequent GSTR3B.
Considering all of the above it appears that the notice is too early
and may not be legally valid. Please provide us the list of credits as per your
record and also confirm that this reconciliation is required in law.
We as law abiding assessees would like to be on the right side
of law but do not wish to be burdened with additional costs of
preparation of statements, getting them verified by our Consultants if there is
no requirement under law.
Kindly acknowledge the receipt of this letter and advise on the
questions raised especially concerning the legal validity and the request for
information from your side.
Signature of assessee
Credits to : CA Madhukar Hiregange
In case you are not able to view the message properly please view the same page on
No comments:
Post a Comment